My family has had two home break-ins over the past decade. Maybe that's why I cannot grasp how you could possibly "roll your eyes" at the idea that a gun can be used for protection. Maybe you haven't needed one, yet, to protect yourself, but that doesn't mean no one else has. You find this somehow a ridiculous notion worthy of your contempt? Nice to see one's protection, whether it be from larger world events or someone invading their home, is such an inconsequential matter to you.

i have had 2 break-ins over the past decade. 1st time i lost a lot. 2nd time nothing because i purchased a house alarm after my first time. people here break-in houses without guns because they do not expect to be shot. if there is an encounter, they flee. if i were a robber and knew that people keep guns in the house i guess i would always break-in with a weapon, trigger happy, and ready to shoot. that is what i am getting at. people killed over a matter of dollars. let them take your crap and live the next day.

so basically, when you hear glass break, you are out there with your gun knowing that if there is a person out there, they will also be carrying. so... you are expecting a shootout? that is so crazy! you are willing to kill someone over what? money? jewelry?

my cancer comment is to show how ridiculous it is to risk life over something trivial. a break-in is not something to risk your life over. a mugging is nothing compared to death. rape is an exception though. if you are talking about rape then i suggest tasers and sprays instead. i am all for the death sentence for that power trip.

Acmurphy wrote:

I don't argue against the fact that guns are more deadly than a knife, sword, crossbow, what have you. They are not, however, more deadly than a vehicle. It's not guns that are killing people, it's people. If you take guns away you don't just get rid of all those deaths, you just get a number of them from other weapons. It's tougher to kill people with a knife or your hands, but it doesn't get rid of the desire to see someone dead. Now surely some people will not want to chance it without a gun, but the problem, in America at least, is the whole gang mentality that exists. You don't get rid of it by getting rid of guns. They still want to fight and kill. And if there were no guns you could apply the same comment to a knife. Britain has strict gun laws but is thus rife with stabbings. Should they ban knives too because they are being used to kill people? Where does it end exactly?

you must agree that a knife is more deliberate, right? and harder to kill with? anyway, i do not want a ban on these weapons. i want a different understanding of their practicality. i do not want people to buy this weapon to make them feel "safe". i do not want people waking up in the middle of the night waving their gun around their house because they heard a noise. i do not want people to pull out their gun when they are being mugged for cash. i do not want people to pull out their gun when somebody approaches their car after they have been bumped in the back. that is the mentality that i do not like. people fearing for the worse and ready to exact revenge and what have you.

i hate the idea that normal everyday citizens have to carry a weapon to feel safe. sure let the gangbangers and riff-raff shoot each other off. when these gangbangers expect normal people to also be dangerous then it just gets worse. people willing to use guns on people are simply chicken-shits in my opinion.

Acmurphy wrote:

What? Where did I learn it? I breath. I've lived. I'm a human being. Do you have no concern about the fact that there are forces out there trying to take away your rights? How much "learning" do you have to have to know that losing your rights is not a good thing? If this was the freedom of speech we were talking about would you ask the same question? Wouldn't you think it was plain as day why someone would not want their freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc., taken away? You may just view a gun as an object, but I view it as a protection of my rights. Which is why I view them all as equally important and have a hard time answering your question, because, shouldn't every person on the planet have the same fear? It's not like it isn't happening, it's happening all the time. In the US you have the Patriot Act, that took away some of our rights to privacy. You have the anti-gun lobby trying to take away my right to bear arms (thankfully failing at the moment, but they are trying). There's a bill in congress known as card check that will take away people's right to vote privately in companies with respect to unionizing, opening up the ability of unions to intimidate those who don't vote their way since they will know how people vote. Ya, there are a lot of things out there that are being done to take away little bits and pieces of our rights, and that should be something that is watched closely. It doesn't have to be one thing all at once, over time the restrictions on our lives add up. And it isn't just happening in the US.

again, i do not want a ban. it is the mentality of gun toting people in fear that annoys me.

Acmurphy wrote:

Ah yes, because we live in a world of peace and love, where people have no evil ambitions and never try and grasp power when and where there is an opportunity. The world has never seen dictators rise to power, the fall of a democracy, people of a country rise up against injustice, or the oppression of peoples' rights. These events that have happened countless times throughout the millennia, across all of human history, and occur in countries around the world still. Why then, can such an event never come? What precludes "us" exactly? (As I assume you were specifically referring to more developed democracies, since your comment hardly applies to all countries in the world today.

Just because things are relatively stable now, at least in most parts of the world, is no indication of what the future will hold. Just because we elect officials doesn't mean that can't come to an end, that they truly have our best interest at heart, or that it can't be changed by an outside event. Look at the civil war. That was fought because, as the south viewed it, the north was trying to take away their right to own slaves. That issue went too far for a large enough population that a war was fought over their attempted succession. Not that I am arguing in favor of slavery, but the premise of the situation holds true. As you said, it doesn't just have to be against the government and its military alone, but also the people who are on their side of the issue as well. Regardless, if they try to take your rights away it doesn't really matter who they are or what title they have, does it?

as long as you are just keeping your guns locked in your basement ready for your little war. that is okay for me. just kill human beings for the "right" reasons. okay?

Acmurphy wrote:

Hopefully the tomorrow I fear will never come to the US and the other countries of the world. That those who would restrict my rights will fail, that there will be no destabilizing wars or depressions that foster those who would grasp greater power to do so. But I will not be so blind as to say it can't, won't, hasn't or isn't happening. Just as it has for thousands of years. And, I might add, will always happen as long as humans are, simply, human.

bleak outlook. for our society to progress we need to remove the violent element and not resorting to have mere citizens using unreliable dangerous violent means. until that day comes, trust our protectors to do the protecting.

if i were a robber and knew that people keep guns in the house i guess i would always break-in with a weapon, trigger happy, and ready to shoot.

The British police principle? Officers who carry no guns because an offender would be less likely to shoot at them then. Or... what's it called... "the principle of commensurability"? Something I got taught in the army:"If on a patrol in the base area you encounter a suspect who carries a knife you don't just shoot him!"I think someone must be pretty screwed up to shoot an unarmed person.Therefore beware of drug addicts. If they are desperately looking for money for the next dosis your life ain't worth sh*t, unarmed or not.

dbd_addict wrote:

you are expecting a shootout? that is so crazy! you are willing to kill someone over what? money? jewelry?

I smell a whiff of anti-capitalism!

dbd_addict wrote:

people willing to use guns on people are simply chicken-shits in my opinion.

That was undiplomatic. I'd rather say you always have a choice. The (im-)balance of the pros and cons might be different in every single case, but there's always a choice. Show me a man who resorts to violence and I'll show you a man who's run out of ideas.

Acmurphy wrote:

You have the anti-gun lobby trying to take away my right to bear arms (thankfully failing at the moment, but they are trying).

How about the motion to just ban automatic weapons and armor-piercing rounds?

Acmurphy wrote:

Look at the civil war. That was fought because, as the south viewed it, the north was trying to take away their right to own slaves.

There never was a right to own slaves in the constitution if I'm not mistaken... wasn't it more like, states can't leave the Union even if their citizens want it that way?

Joined: March 11th, 2007, 11:19 amPosts: 2452Location: In the Tardis, off to who knows where in who knows when!

dbd_addict wrote:

i do not want people to buy this weapon to make them feel "safe". i do not want people waking up in the middle of the night waving their gun around their house because they heard a noise. i do not want people to pull out their gun when they are being mugged for cash. i do not want people to pull out their gun when somebody approaches their car after they have been bumped in the back. that is the mentality that i do not like. people fearing for the worse and ready to exact revenge and what have you.

Lets just remember for a second, before you keep talking about all these people with guns acting like blood thirsty Rambos out looking for a kill, that most people who own a gun are just normal people. They're not looking to use it, they don't want to shoot people, they don't want to be put in a situation in which they would need to. They have it in case such an event is thrust upon them and in which they would need to use it to protect either himself or someone else. Reading through your post I just couldn't help but feel you have such a negatively skewed view of people who own guns (or this continuing comment about how it's not guns but how people view them, but you still don't want them using guns regardless mystery) that you've almost lost the plot. 70-80 million Americans own guns, over 250 million of them. Let that gestate for a minute before you start talking about how people are just going wild once they have guns, pointing them at anything that moves in the night or anyone who pisses them off. Because it's not that incidents like that don't happen, but the frequency is utterly inconsequential by comparison to the whole.

dbd_addict wrote:

if i were a robber and knew that people keep guns in the house i guess i would always break-in with a weapon, trigger happy, and ready to shoot. that is what i am getting at. people killed over a matter of dollars. let them take your crap and live the next day.

That makes a couple of assumptions, that 1) the robber has the ability to acquire a firearm, 2) that all robbers are willing to risk their lives for your property, and 3) that they don't think of anything beyond that. Sure, some will be willing to risk their lives for your property, whether they are looking for drug money or some gang members who don't care about the value of life (yours or theirs in some cases) but the majority of people who may be willing to rob you aren't going to do so if they know trying to steal your HD TV or wallet may get them killed (or at the very least shot). That is, of course, if a gun is not simply used as a deterrent, keeping them from trying anything else with a knife, other such weapon/object, or simply their hands.

The other aspect you seem to be ignoring has to do with the punishment for the crime, not just the fact that they could be shot by the person they're robbing. A simple burglary is not considered that bad of an offense, in and of itself. It varies state by state and how strict they are, but if it's your first offense you're likely to get probation, with a max (if they threw the book at you) of ~3 years, with it going higher if you have a past record, especially with a weapon. Armed robbery (having a weapon) or aggravated robbery (which would be use of a deadly weapon) both leap up in the number of years of jail time. Obviously depending on the the weapon and how much damage you inflict the statistics vary widely, but go from 5 to 25 years and up, with a homicide going to life in prison and maybe even the death penalty. I don't know about you, but if I can steal some jewels and such it may be worth it if I'm only going to get probation, or a couple years if you can't help but do it multiple times, but going in guns a blazing, shooting at people and stealing their stuff is going to get you in jail for a good chunk of your life. It's not simply dependent upon whether or not they expect the person they are going to rob to have a gun. There's a lot of other contemplations at work here. If everyone had a gun, all the burglars daring to rob you would indeed have some sort of weapon or a gun if they could. But the number of burglaries would be drastically reduced since people wouldn't be willing to risk their life (whether from being shot or put in jail) simply to rob your house.

At any rate, the idea that if you don't try and protect yourself from someone trying to rob you, believing that they will follow some sort of unwritten code of criminal honor that they won't do anything to you if you don't is sort of foolhardy, It may very well be true in some situations, but hardly all, and banking on it sounds preposterous. If they are willing to steal your property, whether from a mugging, carjacking or burglary, (usually at the threat of physical harm if you don't give it up), you'd best be prepared for them to be willing to take it to another level. With or without your provocation.

dbd_addict wrote:

so basically, when you hear glass break, you are out there with your gun knowing that if there is a person out there, they will also be carrying. so... you are expecting a shootout? that is so crazy! you are willing to kill someone over what? money? jewelry?

I'm willing to protect my property and myself with my gun if that's what you're getting at. Preferably I can be clandestine enough to assess the situation and gain the advantage rather than jumping out with wild abandon firing at anything that moves. I mean, if they don't have a gun than you have the upper hand. If they try anything nothing says "don't do that" like a gunshot to the leg. If they do have a gun or weapon, what reason could they have for carrying that other than to stop you from stopping them from taking your stuff? (This of course assumes they aren't planning to take you out to begin with). If they're willing and attempting to shoot at me for my stuff than ya, I would shoot them. It's nice and all to think that a burglar has only stealing your stuff on his mind but that isn't really realistic. If he finds you and you see him he may not be so willing to just tie you up and continue on with his work. But you fail to grasp one key point. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to go out and protect your stuff. You can simply hide in the corner of your closet with the knowledge that if he comes in and finds you, you can protect yourself, and if he doesn't you don't have to do anything but wait for the police. Nothing says you have to go put a cap in his ass. Now if it's a mugging and you can't just hide, you could either wait to see if he has a weapon (if he didn't immediately pull one on you), if he tries to do any harm to you, if you could just book it out of there, or if he doesn't have a gun or knife and is far away enough you could pull your gun out and keep him there while waiting for the police.

It all depends on the situation. How many of them are there, where you are when he or they break in, do you have access to a phone and can wait for the police to get there while hiding somewhere, do you have a family elsewhere in the house to protect, can you even get to a gun in time to use it, etc. This is not some sort of black and white case where if you have a gun you have to go blasting out and shoot their face off.

dbd_addict wrote:

my cancer comment is to show how ridiculous it is to risk life over something trivial. a break-in is not something to risk your life over. a mugging is nothing compared to death. rape is an exception though. if you are talking about rape then i suggest tasers and sprays instead. i am all for the death sentence for that power trip.

Wait wait wait wait wait. You're making an absolutely enormous assumption here. And that is that you can somehow know that a robbery or a mugging isn't going to result in your death or serious injury or some other aspect (rape of your gf who's there with you?). You can't possibly know what's going to occur, in any way, shape or form until the deed is over and done with. Assuming that if you do nothing about it that nothing will happen to you is a pie-in-the-sky hope and prayer. A burglary is only "trivial" until you encounter a burglar who isn't so nice as to let you sit there while he goes on taking your stuff. Again, a burglary starts out as a burglary until things go downhill, but you never know how deep that rabbit hole will go. Better to preempt than find yourself screwed. Hopefully not literally

In America over 400 women, every single day, use a gun in defense against a rapist. Not that mace or a taser is a bad idea either, but you get my point. If someone is trying to rape you, it doesn't really matter what item you're using as long as you can stop him. It's just easier to stop a guy with a bullet than a taser or mace.

dbd_addict wrote:

i hate the idea that normal everyday citizens have to carry a weapon to feel safe.

I don't like it either, but it's a reality of the world we live in. And I try to keep myself grounded in the way things actually are, not the way I would like them to be or wish they were.

dbd_addict wrote:

again, i do not want a ban. it is the mentality of gun toting people in fear that annoys me.

You keep saying you're not for gun bans, that you're just against the way people look at them or something (I still don't really understand it, probably because your reasons make no sense to me). Yet you've never said how you want people to perceive guns nor how that would fit with your perception that shooting people is just plain wrong. Where's the rubber meet the road exactly?

dbd_addict wrote:

bleak outlook. for our society to progress we need to remove the violent element and not resorting to have mere citizens using unreliable dangerous violent means.

I talk about practical matters; protection from criminals, oppressive governments, infringement of ones' rights, etc. You know, real life events that have happened and are happening right now throughout the world in all shapes and sizes. You talk about some sort of world where humans no longer act like they have for their entire existence. No more people acting on their anger and rage, sadness and despair, leading them to do evil and wicked things with any object at their disposal. What are you advocating exactly? All people just live with what the criminals do? If they take your stuff too bad for you, you can work longer and harder to get it all back before the next guy steals from you as you hand him your wallet with a smile? They attack you with a weapon you take the high road and refuse to inflict any damage on them? If the people of the world don't fight against criminal behavior, you're right, they may no longer have a desire to commit violence in the act of taking your stuff, they won't need to (except for those who just like to commit violent acts of course), but is that really what you are driving at here? When, exactly, is the point at which you say violence is fine to use on someone else? It seems that, even if someone is attempting to rape a woman you still don't want her to actually inflict any real damage on him. That's great and all till you don't hit him with enough mace or you miss with the taser and you get raped. It's equally as bad if you miss with a gun, but you've got distance (hopefully), multiple shots, and he's probably not going to be too apt to come at you when you have a gun pointed at him.

dbd_addict wrote:

until that day comes, trust our protectors to do the protecting.

No thanks. At least, not blindly in all instances. If you're talking about the police, they can't be everywhere at once to keep people safe (not that they stand on the side of justice all the time anyway, they are only human after all). If you're talking about the larger government role, than... ah forget it. We've been down this road before. Too much rehashing is not good for the soul, contrary to popular belief.

dbd_addict wrote:

people willing to use guns on people are simply chicken-shits in my opinion.

Well, now things are starting to go downhill a bit. If the name calling is going to start we may as well just stop now. It's not like we are getting anywhere with this. We are diametrically opposed on the issues, talking in circles, and I for one am tired of writing so damn much! This must be my longest post on the forum yet!

I haven't forgotten about you 42317!

42317 wrote:

How about the motion to just ban automatic weapons and armor-piercing rounds?

It's not really an automatic weapons ban because you can't buy fully automatic or even burst fire guns. What they're looking at doing, if it's like the previous Clinton ban on assault weapons, is to ban weapons that are basically their semi-auto kin that have been modified for civilian sale. It's not even a ban of the guns themselves, just specific aspects of some of them, like a pistol grip. If it has one it's illegal, if it doesn't it's legal. It doesn't really make much sense. At any rate, I am not for a ban on these semi-automatic weapons. Even if you look at their use in gun related crime it's something like 1% involve assault weapons.

Armor piercing rounds are a slightly different story. There are bullets specifically made to pierce armor and then there are just regular rifle rounds that simply can't be stopped by current bullet proof vest technology. I could see doing something with bullets specifically made to go through armor. There would need to be further controls on their sale (more regulation than regular ammo, a specific license, sale to state militias, or some such). Regular rifle rounds, like those being used for hunting game and such, not so much.

My problem is with the current rules, regulation, and enforcement measures are with regards to criminals being able to get their hands on guns even after they have committed a crime and are thus ineligible to legally purchase one. They don't need to restricts my rights and ability to purchase various types of guns and rifles when I am a law abiding citizen, but they certainly need to do more with respect to the criminal elements. I don't mind if that means I have to jump through more hoops to get the weapon I want, but it shouldn't restrict my right to get it if I haven't done anything wrong.

42317 wrote:

There never was a right to own slaves in the constitution if I'm not mistaken... wasn't it more like, states can't leave the Union even if their citizens want it that way?

In a sense. The South felt it was being shafted by the North with regards to freeing the slaves, an act which would hit the South much harder because basically it was all farms with slaves who did the work. The North was more shipping and manufacturing, with a much higher base population and a much lower dependence on slave labor so they were less impacted by their slaves being freed (and over the years grew to view slaves much more differently than the South did). Thus they fought a war over their attempted succession, which was prompted by the whole slaves issue. No, the constitution never had anything in it about the right to own slaves, but the fact that they did, and depended greatly on their labor, was why they were so adverse to losing that them and thus seceded and fought against the North.

Over here I don't like anyone with guns either...yet almost everyone has one...yet the need for one to have a gun too...ha..

It's the fact that having a gun on you makes you feel powerful....like if someone stares at you...you feel like you can stare back and even make "what?" gestures as if you're invincible Which would than probably get someone killed...I would mostly avoid eye contact...I have the bad habit of looking at everyone as if they were sleeping with my g/f...and that would lead to someone who will have a gun and end up killing me (I hear people killing others for the most stupid things...like if I stepped on your toes by mistake...again...its because they feel powerful and probably want to show how badass they are with a gun)...

Another situation I hear a lot is when there is a fight..someone takes out a gun...the person being pointed at goes on and says "well if you took it out use it motherf" *bang*

Thank you! You seem to have either lots of time at your hands (when you wrote that post that is) or you felt so passionate that you didn't care about the paper that's due tomorrow.

Fresnokila wrote:

I have the bad habit of looking at everyone as if they were sleeping with my g/f...

Do you consciously do that? I hope not... that would make you a sort of maniac... on the other hand I heard that southerners indeed are, well, rather passionate when it comes to women and easily jealous. Going so far that I read in an article about... a city in Mexico (Tijuana?)... that you'd better avoid even looking at women in dance clubs because it might quickly end with a knife between your ribs. Lucky for me I'm neither interested in modern Mexico in particular nor in dance clubs in general.

By the way, I am told by people whom I have not known for very long that I looked like someone who might run amok and start hitting people violently at the drop of a hat... not my intention... but what can I do? Plastic surgery?

Fresnokila wrote:

Another situation I hear a lot is when there is a fight..someone takes out a gun...the person being pointed at goes on and says "well if you took it out use it motherf" *bang*We think the person won't use it...

Sounds like something a Latino macho would say... sorry for the reference.I'd think more in the lines of "Do you think this is worth it?"

Hahaha...I guess I would stay away from Mexico too...not that I'm interested in going there for now...

And no offense taken...latino's tend to have this pride even against themselves which I guess is why we have like 18 killings in a weekend...which maybe somewhere else that's a small number...ha..but Puerto Rico is the size of a grain of rice on the map Ha and I don't look at people that way on purpose...its just the way my face was created I've been called simpatico (I don't think that needs translation)

perhaps you misread me. when i say pull out their weapon. i mean just that. pull it out. not guns blazing blood thirsty Rambos out looking for a kill. oh i see where you thought that. i said revenge. my bad. anyway, what i mean is that there is a high chance for accidents to happen. i really believe that carrying a loaded gun, that will most likely never be used as intended, is just a mistake waiting to happen.

which leads to altercations between all the power trippers that Fresno speaks of. i hate that friends recommended to pack a gun when traveling johannesburg or kingston. i do not want to hear people saying the same thing about detroit, l.a., or new york.

okay maybe you are right with the burglars in the us who are deterred because of all the gun toting citizens.

Quote:

Although Canada outperforms the U.S. on the violent crime indicators, it may come as a surprise that there are more burglaries in Canada than in the United States. In 2002, the U.S. had 746 burglaries per 100,000 people—131 fewer than in Canada.

If they are willing to steal your property, whether from a mugging, carjacking or burglary, (usually at the threat of physical harm if you don't give it up), you'd best be prepared for them to be willing to take it to another level. With or without your provocation.

whatever level you receive i assume you will draw your gun as soon as you are attacked. if you do not do it quickly enough, it will be too late, right? that is the problem. it has escalated.

Acmurphy wrote:

If they try anything nothing says "don't do that" like a gunshot to the leg. If they do have a gun or weapon, what reason could they have for carrying that other than to stop you from stopping them from taking your stuff? (This of course assumes they aren't planning to take you out to begin with). If they're willing and attempting to shoot at me for my stuff than ya, I would shoot them. It's nice and all to think that a burglar has only stealing your stuff on his mind but that isn't really realistic. If he finds you and you see him he may not be so willing to just tie you up and continue on with his work. But you fail to grasp one key point. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to go out and protect your stuff. You can simply hide in the corner of your closet with the knowledge that if he comes in and finds you, you can protect yourself, and if he doesn't you don't have to do anything but wait for the police. Nothing says you have to go put a cap in his ass. Now if it's a mugging and you can't just hide, you could either wait to see if he has a weapon (if he didn't immediately pull one on you), if he tries to do any harm to you, if you could just book it out of there, or if he doesn't have a gun or knife and is far away enough you could pull your gun out and keep him there while waiting for the police.

here is the difference between you and me: It's nice and all to think that a burglar has only stealing your stuff on his mind but that isn't really realistic.i would love to see the statistics on this. then again that is maybe because US has a higher violent crime rate than CND while CND has a higher burglary rate than the US.

i assume you know people who were getting robbed only to then be shot or raped. that can only explain why you think that i am dreaming in la la land when a mugging or robbery takes place that only the robbing is the crime. so logically it is wise to carry a loaded gun when somebody jumps you unsuspectedly... /just a touch of sarcasm

Acmurphy wrote:

In America over 400 women, every single day, use a gun in defense against a rapist.

is this really true? how many perps succeed? how many victims fire the gun?

Acmurphy wrote:

I don't like it either, but it's a reality of the world we live in. And I try to keep myself grounded in the way things actually are, not the way I would like them to be or wish they were.

i see that as a vicious circle. you or your family must have been physically harmed i guess.

Acmurphy wrote:

You keep saying you're not for gun bans, that you're just against the way people look at them or something (I still don't really understand it, probably because your reasons make no sense to me). Yet you've never said how you want people to perceive guns nor how that would fit with your perception that shooting people is just plain wrong. Where's the rubber meet the road exactly?

keep a gun to shoot at the range for fun. keep a locked up unloaded gun in your home ready for the end of the world/government. do not carry a loaded gun around for your protection outside of your house. that is all. too many people are scared and they have never had any violent crime done upon them. perceive others not as suspect.

Acmurphy wrote:

I talk about practical matters; protection from criminals, oppressive governments, infringement of ones' rights, etc. You know, real life events that have happened and are happening right now throughout the world in all shapes and sizes. You talk about some sort of world where humans no longer act like they have for their entire existence. No more people acting on their anger and rage, sadness and despair, leading them to do evil and wicked things with any object at their disposal. What are you advocating exactly? All people just live with what the criminals do? If they take your stuff too bad for you, you can work longer and harder to get it all back before the next guy steals from you as you hand him your wallet with a smile? They attack you with a weapon you take the high road and refuse to inflict any damage on them? If the people of the world don't fight against criminal behavior, you're right, they may no longer have a desire to commit violence in the act of taking your stuff, they won't need to (except for those who just like to commit violent acts of course), but is that really what you are driving at here? When, exactly, is the point at which you say violence is fine to use on someone else? It seems that, even if someone is attempting to rape a woman you still don't want her to actually inflict any real damage on him. That's great and all till you don't hit him with enough mace or you miss with the taser and you get raped. It's equally as bad if you miss with a gun, but you've got distance (hopefully), multiple shots, and he's probably not going to be too apt to come at you when you have a gun pointed at him.

a gun is too harsh. it could also be turned against you. when it comes to rape i doubt any woman really can get a gun up in time. at least with mace she can carry it in her hand when she is walking. unless women walk around at night with her gun in hand... i do not know. i never let my girlfriends walk around alone at night, but if they do i tell them to keep their keys in their hands. any concealed weapon is illegal here. the mass majority of rape here is by someone the victim knows.

Acmurphy wrote:

Well, now things are starting to go downhill a bit. If the name calling is going to start we may as well just stop now.

unless you are some tough guy with a gun using it to commit crimes you can be safe to say that was not directed towards you. but really now. if you are drawing a gun at somebody you must be a little scared... no?

Lets say, you had the chance to go back in time and change certain events, is that morally wrong?Another question, say you had the chance to control another human being(like literally being in someone else's shoes)and control their actions, is that morally wrong?Would you approve of doing these things, what are you thoughts on these questions. I would greatly appreciate it.

*gasp* Zero, is that you? Or is someone controlling you (or your password)?

Must be a time for philosophical questions right now... recently, a Japanese person asked me "What is the German opinion of the Japanese view on history?" and "What kind of country is Germany?" Hah... took me one day to think about in German and another two days to write my views in Japanese.

Anyways...

... about changing time:I do not think it is morally wrong as long as you change something that is at least indecent, like the Holocaust maybe, while the drawbacks must be minimal. Kill Hitler while he's fighting on the Western Front of World War One. That's "easy" because a big portion of responsibility for this unbelievable crime can be tracked back to this single person without a trace of doubt. (Of course, there are some complicated historical factors involved, and you can never say that there couldn't also be other events triggering the same results, maybe with a delay of a few years or decades.)

Preventing World War One on the other hand would take away the concrete to pave the road to the Third Reich, World War Two, and Auschwitz altogether, but that conflict had so many factors that it would take a well organized masterplan to cover them all, if it was possible at all. There's no point in killing 5000 to save 6000 (that's what the early communists attempted or at least claimed to attempt, exterminating ten thousands to save millions.)

In general I'd say it is not immoral as long as the change does not deliberately lead to another person's suffering. With great regret I'd agree to the compromise "one for many", like without Hitler there's no Holocaust, without Lenin there's no red terror, and end it there.

There are surely changes that could be accomplished without such drastic matters, e.g. by reasoning with a certain person who's about to make a wrong decision of historical proportions - whereas wrong and right is a subjective matter. A staunch royalist Brit who mourns the passing of the Empire for example might want to convince General Lafayette to avoid getting involved in the War of Independence, building on Lafayette's post-war quote that he'd never have drawn his sword for the United States if he had known that he'd help establish a slave owner society... but I cannot think of a feasible example that at the same time would avoid suffering on the part of those at the disadvantageous side of the deal, I'd rather not interfere.

... about controlling another person:I'll stay with my opinion above - any action you undertake must not lead to someone's suffering unless it saves the lives or at least the pursuit of happiness of many, many, many, many people.

Lets say, you had the chance to go back in time and change certain events, is that morally wrong?

It depends... what kind of events are we talking about? A world changing event that had a drastic outcome... maybe were people were killed. Or perhaps something that would put you in a better position than you are right now. Zero, maybe narrowing the aspects of these certain events would make it easier to answer.But either way, I believe that I as a person, I'm here right now living because of billions of past events (significant to history or not) where millions of people participated, if I were to change something in the past... what can assure me that I would not cease to exist or perhaps think differently than I do now ( change my identity), and this goes for all the people out there. For those who like to be here I mean. If this change is going to affect me only and it's going to benefit me without harming anyone else that would be a little bit different, I would probably say yes let's do it.

zero_chaos wrote:

Another question, say you had the chance to control another human being(like literally being in someone else's shoes)and control their actions, is that morally wrong?

It depends on what you are trying to achieve by doing that... is it for their gain, for the world's, or your own?

Sorry to be so inconclusive, I think there is not just black and white, but more like an infinite gamma of grays.

In general I'd say it is not immoral as long as the change does not deliberately lead to another person's suffering. With great regret I'd agree to the compromise "one for many", like without Hitler there's no Holocaust, without Lenin there's no red terror, and end it there.

Great answer.

wolfwood wrote:

Sorry to be so inconclusive, I think there is not just black and white, but more like an infinite gamma of grays.

No, your inconclusive answer is very much what I want, any and all opinions on this matter are wonderful.

To help out with my question about control over another human being, I will use names to try and lower the confusion.

If Bill was to be able to control Tod's body, wouldn't that destroy Tod's ability to have free will. What gives Bill the right to control Tod's body and his life. In this case I am talking about Bill using Tod's body for Bill's own personal gain.

Now on time travel. Take into account that you have gone back in time or just to a certain point in time, and you have the chance to do whatever you wanted. You do not know whether or not your actions will cause a chain of events and destroy lives/events. At that moment would you think it is okay to try and change things?

If Bill was to be able to control Tod's body, wouldn't that destroy Tod's ability to have free will. What gives Bill the right to control Tod's body and his life. In this case I am talking about Bill using Tod's body for Bill's own personal gain.

It's completely unacceptable and morally wrong. It kind of comes to mind how neoliberalism has taking control of our society.

zero_chaos wrote:

Now on time travel. Take into account that you have gone back in time or just to a certain point in time, and you have the chance to do whatever you wanted. You do not know whether or not your actions will cause a chain of events and destroy lives/events. At that moment would you think it is okay to try and change things?

Given the case scenario I could rewind time and "re-live some periods of my life" (not just change things here and there) would I do it? Well, we learn from our mistakes and they shape us into what we are right now, but taking into consideration that I'd go back with all my memories and knowledge from present time it'd be really tempting, If I were put into that position, I would do it, it's a huge gamble, but life is too short to miss the chance to live again through childhood and teenage. I would make sure to leave the most important turning points in my life intact though, so I could end up where I am right now and I'd try my best to not harm anyone.That all would happen because I'm not as strong-willed as I would like to, there is no way that my actions would not ignite a a spark that would end up changing or destroying lives or events as you put it, and morally I would like to be the person who would reject the opportunity, sadly I think I might succumb...

If Bill was to be able to control Tod's body, wouldn't that destroy Tod's ability to have free will.

It won't destroy his free will. Paraplegics and Parkinson patients also have free will, but they lack the motor control to exercise it. Same with Tod, basically.

wolfwood wrote:

zero_chaos wrote:

I am talking about Bill using Tod's body for Bill's own personal gain.

It's completely unacceptable and morally wrong.

I second that. Controlling anyone by any means for personal gains is not just morally wrong, it's a crime.

wolfwood wrote:

It kind of comes to mind how neoliberalism has taking control of our society.

I see your point, but I think it's a bit more complicated.

zero_chaos wrote:

Take into account that you have gone back in time or just to a certain point in time, and you have the chance to do whatever you wanted. You do not know whether or not your actions will cause a chain of events and destroy lives/events.

Well, I guess there are some instances that can be assessed as to whether there will be harm to others or not, and many instances will not allow that because the change is too small-scale. Or the person given that opportunity is too unimaginative.Sure, if I could re-live these years... there are things in my so far rather unimportant life that I'd like to correct, no doubt about it. I have done things that I regret doing, and there are things which I haven't done but should have done. I guess I would study more. I would not write that embarrassing love letter. Such things. Globally small, but personally strategic points. Changing world history, fiddling about people's fates, is immoral and too dangerous imho, as I have said above.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum